Forum:Political Coalitions
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Discuss your coalitions here! PL, LDP, CNP Coalition agreed? --[[User:Jeffwang16|'J']]•''t'' 17:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC) Confirm * PL = Yes * LDP = Yes * CNP = Yes Comments Just a note, this is kind of the wrong place. It should not be a subforum of Federal elections. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:03, December 28, 2011 (UTC) Uhh wow. PL just better be active. that's all I can say. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:46, January 1, 2012 (UTC) James Torres doesn't have enough votes. Is anyone willing to change a vote to him? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:31, January 2, 2012 (UTC) I gave you a big fat juicy vote I did. :P Kunarian 14:50, January 2, 2012 (UTC) Costello still has votes in excess, though. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:53, January 2, 2012 (UTC) Its the size of his party so far, 4 users! thats a lot of votes. I'm sure votes'll go around more if some of the old peeps come to chip in. 16:43, January 2, 2012 (UTC) CCPL After examining the party programs, it looks like CCPL's chances on getting into the coalition are low, but there are some possibilities. Party programs are quite close sometimes, while some are quite far :P We share approximately 20% with Labour and CPL.nm, so that ain't gonna work :P LDP is 40%, Positive Lovia is about 50%, CNP is about 60%, MCP about 70% and Semyon is 90% :P Well, these high percentages are of course mainly because of our economic programs, which are rather similar, and not our "social issues policy" :P Of course, other coalitions make more sense without CCPL, but we are open to discussions. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:03, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :: At this point I would forget Soical issues and join join a coalition with you on progressive Economic issues. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:02, January 7, 2012 (UTC) I think CCPL is just too damn conservative for my taste. Marcus, the CCPL is not progressive in economics, I think they're more centrist or rightist. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:03, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :: true, i forgot to put the in that last post Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:04, January 7, 2012 (UTC) I still don't understand why conservatives have so many problems with victimless crimes... —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:09, January 7, 2012 (UTC) : Idk, as a future physiologist, it appears to be something with there genetics, but also shows that (and don't take this the wrong way) studies have shown, Conservatives are less likely to (and here's that phrase I kept talking to you about last night) process information given to them and overall are a bit not as intelligent compared to Liberals and progressives. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:14, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I was processing the information, but it was not worth acting on because it was just undoing and insults. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:18, January 7, 2012 (UTC) :::Yeah but i was afaid you'd gone rightest on me Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:20, January 7, 2012 (UTC) ::::Lol. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:22, January 7, 2012 (UTC) @TM: You call abortion victimless crime? Surely there is a victim, but unfortunately he/she is too young to give his opinion. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:41, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :It is good to give woomen the right to abort. Imagine that a woman is raped, gets pregnant, and does not have the right to abort. They then have a child they can't care for. Mostly such women can't care alone for their child because of pyschic problems. They don't have a partner. Their parner has escaped to rape other women. And if the women gets severe medical problems so that they need too life in a care home, what then? But it should not be used when there is no need for it. I'm BTW not stepping in a government that has CCPL in it Pierlot McCrooke 11:01, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::Then you've never read CCPL's party program. I'll cite: "We are not allowed to take human lives, only God may call people." But: "We do however agree on putting a limit on the euthanasia and abortion politics. Euthanasia should still be possible if the person himself agrees on having it done or if the family agrees in case of irreversability of a very severe health thread. Abortion should still be possible when the mother has been impregnated against her will. The mother should always agree with the abortion." --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:11, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::Yes, But CPL.NM also calls for allowing abortion in the case the women gets severe medical problems. At least abortion should be only 'vergoed' in these 2 cases Pierlot McCrooke 11:43, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::Abortion in case of severe medical problems is - of course - also allowed. Government should never pay for abortion, because that would give a wrong signal to the people. "If a government is allowed to kill, so are we - the citizens." --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::::And maybe it is controversial, but maybe we could also allow abortion in the case the prognosis is clearly showing that the child will be handicapped. However, to not create a eugenics system, the mother should have a CLEAR reason in the case she don't want a handicapped child. And the doctor must review it very carefully, in all three cases I have named. And BTW most people who are having these cases are very poor, so they can't pay fully. Pierlot McCrooke 11:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I think it is a very bad situation if children are aborted because they are handicapped. What's the next step? Keep aborting until you finally have a boy with blue eyes, blond hair and an IQ of 150? I know they are poor, but so is the government. We can't pay for everything. You could get an insurance if you want to. Government does not pay when your house is flooded, the insurance pays then. If you are pro-abortion and are afraid you get a child you don't want: get an abortion insurance. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 11:56, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::::::That was I saying, the insurance will pay (parts of the cost) the abortion. But I don't as eugenics. And as I already said, the mother must have a clear and underbuilded reason to have a handicapped child child aborted. The doctore and some supporting staff will then review. Pierlot McCrooke 12:01, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::Is "I am not ready for a child" or "I am too old\too young" a proper reason? You have to draw the line somewhere between personal responsibility and something you cannot do anything about. Assuming that most women in Lovia know how to use protection... also, what are Lovia's statistics on rape? It probably happened in the Civil War but in an average year, it won't happen that often. And it doesn't always result in a pregnancy. The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::I suggest "I am not ready for a child" or "I am too old\too young". I suggest we only allow insurancers to pay for the 3 reasons I specified, or at least at least lightly control that. About the handicap issue, in some cases it is impossible to manage a handicapped child (like in a situation when you have more than 3 kids). Pierlot McCrooke 12:23, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::Alright, if you have three handicapped kids it is impossible, but three healthy kids and one handicapped is not impossible to manage. And we also have "informal care" (mantelzorg). Let you children stay at your own parents if you have a burn out. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:42, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::What if the fourth kid is severely hanidcapped? or you don't have granpdarents that can care for the kids? And in some cases mantelzorg is not succesful Pierlot McCrooke 12:46, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::Dudes, the only thing stopping you from getting a good solution for the problem of abortion worked out, is the dream of a perfect solution. Nothings going to be perfect, you just need the best system that everyone can agree on, and you will need to give concessions. Because to be honest, every life is precious but if mothers are being so careless to get so oftenly pregnant in Lovia that we need abortion en mass, then where is the real problem? Kunarian 13:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::::Indeed, and speaking about concessions, if there is one party in Lovia having to do a lot of concessions it is CCPL. First we were 100% against all abortion, so we already moved to the others; time for the others to move to us. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Yes that is the big minus to "progrssive" parties they rarely want to compromise for the greater good. But then again anything can happen in Lovia. Kunarian 15:09, January 8, 2012 (UTC) My first plans *Companies that have strong presence have to pay Lovian taxes, even if they are registered in tax paradises like Jersey or Liechtenstein. *Chain stores may be barred from opening stores in favor of local shops. This is to keep livability, and to strenthen local benefits. *Toys included with fastfood should be forbidden Pierlot McCrooke 13:43, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Yeah you could do the first with tax. The second you could also do with a property purchase tax, as in the bigger the company the greater the cost to buy the property, income from that tax could be used to prop up local businesses. The third is a bit :P. I think it'll need to be a congress vote. Kunarian 15:07, January 8, 2012 (UTC) :What do you think of my fourth plan: *Job bureaus should be established for the people who can not find work Pierlot McCrooke 15:11, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Thats a great idea! I can't believe Lovia hasn't got them already. would we put one in every state capital? so that they are easily accessable. It'll also keep the flow of jobs up, boosting the economy. Kunarian 15:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC) I've expanded it: *Job bureaus should be established for the people who can not find work. People will only get 'uitkeringen' when the Job bureau can't find a job or are rejected for normal work by a specialized doctor due to handicaps Pierlot McCrooke 14:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Green Party addition Should the Green Party officially add the Green Party to the PL-CNP-SLP coalition? Please only Green Party, Positive Lovia, CNP and Social Liberal Party members reply. Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 17:47, November 7, 2012 (UTC) : I think we should speak with them first, they do seem to want to join our coalition of freedom and truth but lets talk. :D Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 18:05, November 7, 2012 (UTC) : Yep, I agree, I will ask 77topaz (Nicholas Sheraldin) to join the conservation on summary and talk page. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 18:15, November 7, 2012 (UTC) : Indeed, I'll (the GP will) join the coalition (I thought it already had). Though George and Viva might also have to be consulted. 77topaz (talk) 19:15, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :: It just hasn't been made fully official, that's all. And I'm glad you are doing this democratically. :) Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 19:58, November 7, 2012 (UTC) : Okay. So this is an update of the coalition. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 19:23, November 7, 2012 (UTC) Any ideas for a new name for the coalition? ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 19:55, November 7, 2012 (UTC) Not sure why this is necessary, but confirmed. :D —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:22, November 8, 2012 (UTC) It's a working closely coalition ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 08:15, November 8, 2012 (UTC) George and Viva have both agreed, so the GP's status can be considered "confirmed" now. 77topaz (talk) 08:33, November 8, 2012 (UTC) : Fantastic, glad that we're all on board! :D Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 10:46, November 8, 2012 (UTC) : Yep, it's great. I am going to rename this coalition the Conservative Liberal Aliance, ok? ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' 15:47, November 8, 2012 (UTC) Wait wut Wait, is the plan to "officially" create an alliance, or to merge all of the parties? If you had a merge in mind, the PL is not interested. :P — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 21:44, November 7, 2012 (UTC) : Official Alliance Costello. No mergers. Coalition means an alliance of parties. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 21:48, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::Alrighty then, I'm in. How about we name it something along the lines of Conservative-Liberal Alliance or vice versa? — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 22:17, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::Is this going to be yet another ineffective coalition? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:06, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::Nope this coalition has been working effectively for the past year, we just never formalised it so much. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 07:56, November 8, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yep. Kunarian is right. It was the first coalition agreed on this page too :P ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 08:04, November 8, 2012 (UTC) :::What makes you say that? :P 77topaz (talk) 06:38, November 8, 2012 (UTC) Looking at the results for the past year, I'd say there's no coalition at all :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:54, November 9, 2012 (UTC) : Please Oos explain what you mean? I feel that this year we have largely been recovering and getting used to a new and changed style of government after the effects of the Lovian Civil War. While no, we haven't been passing bills an reforms at the speed of light that's largely because of the reasons I set out. Next year you can expect to see a lot more action from parties individually and from the coalition. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 16:21, November 9, 2012 (UTC) ::1. In the voting period, the votes were not confined to the coalition (though I must admit, I like that situation :P). 2. A real coalition discusses issues to temporarily form a single party program on which all the parties agree (even if it violates certain parties' own program). Such happens in Mäöres; it has never happened in Lovia yet. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:05, November 9, 2012 (UTC) ::Well, it may soon happen in this coalition. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 18:08, November 9, 2012 (UTC) :::I'm a big supporter of good internal discussions. I hope Lovia's ready for it! :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:57, November 9, 2012 (UTC) :::: I'm sure Lovia is ready for good internal discussions. ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' 19:53, November 11, 2012 (UTC) Majority Coalition vs. Grand Coalition Could we discuss the benefits and drawbacks, both in character and out character, of these two systems on our government/wiki? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:32, March 26, 2015 (UTC) Grand coalitions get everybody involved in the executive roles of government. Majority coalitions get just one group of people involved. If we were to have majority coalitions we would need to have Opposition Ministers to scrutinise the Minister or I do not feel that it would be fair on those excluded from main governance. Everybody would still be involved in Congress so in reality technically no one is excluded but I do know that people do desire official positions and so we must make provisions that keep Congress active and engaged. I would only support a government that wanted a grand coalition or a majority coalition with shadow ministers. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 23:52, March 26, 2015 (UTC) We could also make more appointed positions and appoint characters of opposition users, I guess? Opposition ministers is possible but not a requirement. Also, I think that having an opposition would probably keep Congress active, and they could still write bills which I think take up a look more activity than the executive branch. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:57, March 26, 2015 (UTC) :I wouldn't like to overdo it. Too many positions could mean people either not doing every position to the fullest they could due to overloading or simply losing the time to edit the wikia itself. We don't need to create positions that we don't feel are necessary. :Opposition Ministers would be a great idea, it would ensure that Ministers are held to account. And while I agree that writing bills and law making is more important and normally a more common activity we have seen in the past that if people do not feel they have a place in government, whether supporting or officially criticising they find other ways to make their opinions heard. And these are not normally productive for Lovia or the wikia. Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK' 00:04, March 27, 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of opposition ministers. It seems like it could easily become just a source of arguments, and I'm not sure if that would help Lovia. :P 77topaz (talk) 02:32, March 27, 2015 (UTC) :And you don't think it would become a source of arguments to exclude half of users or a small group of users from government? Hoffmann Kunarian'TALK''' 06:36, March 27, 2015 (UTC) ::Yeah, that's the main problem with it è. We left UNS (Magnus/TMV's party) out in 2011 and he quit the wiki until the Civil War, I think. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:11, March 27, 2015 (UTC) Any other thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:18, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I don't have a strong opinion either way è. IC, AMWM is still pushing to exclude CCPL. --Semyon 22:41, April 11, 2015 (UTC) I think it we had a better divided IC and OOC, a majority coalition could work. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:59, April 11, 2015 (UTC) Perhaps. I still think it might be controversial. --Semyon 23:44, April 11, 2015 (UTC)